How the 'No More Page 3' Campaign made me feel less alone

I’m a full supporter of the hugely successful ‘No More Page 3’ campaign. I love the fact it was started by a young feminist, because it gives me hope that the next generation of young women are still prepared to call out moronic sexism wherever they see it, rather than passively accept it the way our sexist media hopes they will. I love the fact that due to the powers of the internet – which are often a very mixed blessing for feminists – this campaign looks like it may succeed where previous campaigns have failed, with 45,000 signatures and growing. I love reading the Twitter messages of support, many from men themselves who are speaking out against the assumption that possession of a penis means you will inevitably accept the objectification of women.

Of course various straw man arguments are being mounted against the campaign, either of the simple ‘You’re all prudes’ variety, or of the ‘There are loads of examples of media sexism, you’ll never change them all’ defeatist argument. When responding to these I feel a massive sense of déjà vu, because I feel like I’ve been responding to these overly simplistic dismissals for years. And when I look back at some of my first blog posts from over four years ago, I realise I actually have!

In July 2008, I wrote "One of the easiest and laziest accusations to throw at feminists is that they're ugly and bitter because they can't get a man, and as a result, are anti-men and anti-sex. This is a tricky one to circumnavigate. If I correct my critics and inform them that I'm happily co-habiting with a most grabbable male, they usually change tack to demand 'what are you complaining about then?'. As if gratitude that one non-sexist man who treats me well exists should somehow erase every grievance wrought upon women by misogynist men and other self-defeating women."

and in November 2010 I wrote "I'm tired of the implicit message that one is anti-sex, or not sexual, or not sexy, because they refuse to buy into this porned, plasticised, men-pleasing schtick. I'd tell Jordan and Belle [de Jour] to go fuck themselves, but that seems unsisterly - although in a society that increasingly dictates to women that man-pleasing is all, fucking yourself seems to be the only shot a woman has at any pleasure these days."

 And going back to my July 2008 post...
“The media are becoming so comfortable and protected in the knowledge that their use of the female body as window dressing to the whole of existence will never be challenged, that they don't even have to pretend that they're trying to use it as anything but irrelevant frippery any more ... Am I the only person who thought that practices such as draping wimmin over cars and motorbikes - the juxtaposition of the fluffy female with a MANLY item - was already crushingly embarrassing when it was done in the 60s and 70s, and has only got worse as those responsible no longer have the claim of ignorance to fall back on? The idea that, because time has passed, it's somehow less offensive to persist in this sleazy behaviour, is about as convincing as the idea that it's now OK to be racist, because, hey the civil rights movement was 40 years ago, you got your equality so stop being so uptight now, sweetheart!"
 

In a more recent post, I considered the hypocrisy of Sun readers condemning extreme pornography (which they claimed was a contributing factor in the murder of Joanna Yeates): “What these Sun readers don't stop to consider is what precisely is so 'normal' about being served sex with your morning breakfast and being aroused by tits as you eat your toast. It's only because that ritual is considered socially acceptable, due to the dominance of a deeply sexist media, that the sexualised Sun is beyond question whereas alternative sexual practices are apparently beyond the pale. Violent porn did not kill Joanna Yeates. The man who chose of his own volition to strangle her, did that. The jury who found Vincent Tabak guilty were able to see that without needing to hear about his porn tastes. Sun readers would do well to remember this, and also to remember that their own attitudes to women are not beyond reproach simply because they consider their sexual tastes 'normal'."

And as for the ‘Oh, lads’ mags/women’s magazines/The Daily Mail/Angler’s Weekly are just as bad, why aren’t you campaigning against THEM too?’ argument, this is a classic attempt to try to heap collective responsibility for changing all of society's sexist failings onto feminists’ heads, whilst abrogating everyone else of any responsibility to improve their behaviour. But getting rid of Page 3 would send out a huge message. It would be a game-changer, an altering of the media landscape, the destruction of a sexist institution in place since the 70s. No, it would not immediately destroy all other media sexism. But it might just make other producers of sexist media content stop and wonder how much longer they can get away with objectifying women when a large swathe of the British public has now proudly declared ‘I’m not buying that shit any more’. The fact that some women do read The Sun, or devour celebrity magazines that objectify the female body in (arguably) possibly a more harmful way is not an argument in Page 3's favour - being a woman doesn’t automatically make you a feminist, or incapable of anti-feminist or self-destructive actions (Yo, Nadine Dorries! Yo, Maria Miller! Yo, Friend of Julian Assange, Lady Gaga!). It doesn’t mean your actions are above questioning, and we certainly should be questioning the culture that encourages us to mock another woman’s legs/thighs/stomach/breasts/hair/nose on our lunchbreak as an ‘inevitable’ part of female bonding. But we have to ask, which came first – the moronic celebrity culture which prizes breast implants and inflated lips above all else, or Page 3? Heat magazine started in 1999, Page 3 in 1970. You do the maths.

My point is, just because we can’t slay all the dragons at once is not an argument for not attempting to stick a big sword in the jugular of one of the largest and most powerful. Maybe we’ll never ‘change the world’. But if we can make a little corner of it a more habitable place for the next generation of young women, I’m damn well on board. Thank you to the #NoMorePage3 campaign for vindicating what I've been writing about for the past 4 years, and despairing about for a lot longer than that.

Reading The Sun is rarely, if ever, a good idea

...but during an idle moment at work, I succumbed. What caught my eye was not any of the usual breasts, casual racism or right-wing hatred, but the crop of letters on the Letters page. All were roundly condemning the judge in the Joanna Yeates murder trial for not allowing the 'fact' of her murderer, Vincent Tabak's 'obsession' with 'strangulation porn' to be admitted as evidence in court. Never mind that the judge was entirely right to leave this irrelevant and potentially leading information out of the case - it's the supreme irony of readers of a newspaper displaying a bare-breasted 20 year-old on its 3rd page writing in to complain about pornography, that really rankles with me.

These Sun readers see no inconsistency in condemning the judge for refusing to admit the evidence of  'Tabak trawling porn sites' whilst happily airing their views in a tabloid which regularly appears to be little more than pornography itself. One letter writer even says "watching vile films of women being strangled during sex are not the actions of an innocent man". Hmmm. I wonder how many rapists, murderers or paedophiles are Sun readers, or have ever glanced at Page 3? Would that be admissible evidence of a predilection for objectifying and degrading women? Somehow, I'm guessing no.

In the letter-writers' minds, the guy who leers at an undressed girl, usually a teenager, with his cup of tea in the morning, is worlds apart from the 'evil sicko' who watches porn where women are tied up, whipped, strangled or humiliated in some way. Yet no study has ever conclusively established a link between viewing degrading or extreme porn and sexual violence, whereas the cumulative effects of The Sun's shitty attitude towards women is everywhere for us to see in British culture. Competitions to win your girlfriend a boob job, preadolescents dreaming of being glamour models, young girls being taught that their entire worth comes from their bodies and sexual behaviour. It's not 'extreme porn' - viewed and consumed in private, controlled environments by adults who choose to do so - that's causing such contempt for women. It's the British tabloid media.

Without getting too much into the ethical debate over 'extreme', 'degrading' or BDSM porn, I do feel it worth mentioning that as someone who has both watched and engaged in acts that could be deemed any of those things, I resent being judged as perverse or deviant by those I consider far more responsible for degrading women. I certainly trusted my male BDSM partners more than I would trust a man who regularly consumes The Sun, Zoo, Nuts, Playboy or even mainstream porn - which is often pretty 'nasty' and 'degrading' itself, and which lacks the disclaimers and reminders that This Is Not Reality which BDSM porn always displays. If you believe that a porn film can turn you into a violent murderer, then you must also believe that consuming media which encourages you to see women as consumable objects perpetually available for men's sexual pleasure can also make your attitudes and actions towards women vile and degrading.

Violent porn doesn't make men murderers - images on a screen just don't have the power to do that. People seek out the kind of erotic stimulation that they know they are already interested in - I knew I was into BDSM long before I saw any images depicting it. I don't seek out foot fetish websites because I don't find feet sexy, and I don't imagine that going on a foot fetish website would do anything to change my preferences. The interest in a particular act predates the search for depictions of that act. That's why I agree that Mr Justice Field was right to disallow the admission of Vincent Tabak's porn tastes into the Joanna Yeates trial. Hopefully he saw, as I can plainly see, that pornography tastes alone do not create, indicate or guarantee sadistic and murderous tendencies. He also probably realised that this simple assertion is beyond the grasp of many people, who view any sexual tastes out of the ordinary as not just deviant but actually dangerous.

What those people, Sun readers included, don't stop to consider is what precisely is so 'normal' about being served sex with your morning breakfast and being aroused by tits as you eat your toast. It's only because that ritual is considered socially acceptable, due to the dominance of a deeply sexist media, that the sexualised Sun is beyond question whereas alternative sexual practices are apparently beyond the pale. Violent porn did not kill Joanna Yeates. The man who chose of his own volition to strangle her, did that. The jury who found Vincent Tabak guilty were able to see that without needing to hear about his porn tastes. Sun readers would do well to remember this, and also to remember that their own attitudes to women are not beyond reproach simply because they consider their sexual tastes 'normal'.